8 ms·

Is that meant to be exculpatory? If you say that you're attacking military targets that are (allegedly) embedded within civilian infrastructure and that you're

Is that meant to be exculpatory? If you say that you're attacking military targets that are (allegedly) embedded within civilian infrastructure and that you're focused on damage rather than accuracy, you are telling me that you intend to massacre civilians.

YZF 3y ago
I think there's a difference in emphasis and intent. We're painting pictures here. So one picture we're painting is "kill as many civilians a possible with no other military objective" and the other picture we're painting is "go after military targets even at some cost to civilians (and the question of that cost)". The reality is that in every way, every military in the world, executes the second picture. The variable being what is a reasonable threshold for the given military objective. The accusations against Israel intentionally try to place it in the first picture. If the critics were clear about their issue being how Israel measures proportionality with respect to every single target they go after, and they were able to support their case comparing to other similar military campaigns, and there was a very clear outcome of that comparison, I think that's very fair and I'd even be able to get behind it. But that's not what the critics are doing.
- bluish29 3y ago
  Things are much clearer, you are just cherry picking what to respond and defend. Then you build your case against isreal critics. One example of things you ignored replying to the GP comment is this. This is a plain war crime > Israeli defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I have ordered a complete siege on Gaza: no electricity, no food, no fuel, no water. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly."
  - YZF 3y ago
    This was said at the heat of the moment when the bodies of the Oct 7th victims were still warm and the entire country was stunned and lost. This complete siege didn't happen.
    - jakelazaroff 3y ago
      Uhhhh yes it did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_blockade_of_the_G... > On 9 October 2023, Israel imposed a "total blockade" of the Gaza Strip, blocking the entry of food, water, medicine, fuel and electricity.
      - YZF 3y ago
        But Israel does allow food and water to enter Gaza. Some fuel. And yes, it stopped providing a portion of Gaza's electricity. I think this (new) Wikipedia article is somewhat iffy. And maybe I'm misusing terminology. I think Israel's actions in this context constitute a blockade that is legal in times of war. I don't want to nitpick siege vs. blockage etc. or the fact that Israel doesn't control all the borders. Israel's actions here are legal.
        bluish29 3y ago
        > But Israel does allow food and water to enter Gaza You mean by not bombing rafah crossing in violation of international law as they did several times already? > I think Israel's actions in this context constitute a blockade that is legal in times of war > Israel's actions here are legal. At least provide any sources during your quest to defend isreal actions. Even if it is straightout lies like that one [1] Hint : the story is about Israeli military releases footage of a secret terrorist ‘roster’ that turns out to be a calendar (that was very obvious for any one with basic arabic knowledge) and that was their justification for bombing and taking out a children hospital bt force. [1] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/israel-gaza-hospital-calendar-terrorist-roster/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/israel-gaza-hospital-calendar...
        YZF 3y ago
        I know about this incident. This was not a calendar. The first day was Oct 7th. It had the operation's name as the title "Al Aqsa Flood". https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1724245759174791626 https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1724245759174791626 It's true that Hagari incorrectly said it was a "roster". But it's not a calendar. It was a mistake, not a lie. He shouldn't have done that. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17zu5x8/did_the_idf_show_just_a_calendar_in_the_al/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17zu5x8/di...
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  If you’re not going to be satisfied with anything short of Netanyahu on tape saying “our intent is to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible”verbatim, then we can just end this conversation now. Even the US would probably be forced to meaningfully withdraw support if Israel fully took the mask off (though as I’ve shown, many high ranking ministers and IDF members have come shockingly close). What you hear instead are thinly-veiled justifications. Oh, we had to bomb those hospitals because there were tunnels there. So sorry about the civilian deaths at a refugee camp, but we just wanted to get that one commander. Let’s be real here. Israel shut off food, water, medicine and electricity to Gaza. They’ve damaged over 2/3 of the buildings there [1]. As of a month ago, they’d dropped almost 2x the amount of explosives the US delivered to Hiroshima [2]. These are not the actions of a country “going after military targets even at some cost to civilians”. Israel is doing exactly what Hagari said: inflicting maximum damage. [1] https://x.com/tksshawa/status/1732447886237974898 https://x.com/tksshawa/status/1732447886237974898 [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/11/9/israel-attacks-on-gaza-weapons-and-scale-of-destruction https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/11/9/israel-att...
  - Natsu 3y ago
    If they're planning to just kill everyone, why haven't they just leveled the place? Militarily speaking, they can do that right now and have been able to do that for a long time. So if that's their true goal, then what stops them from giving the order right now? Meanwhile, Palestine has shown no restraint at all in their 10/7 massacre and no Jews live in Palestine, whereas many Arabs live peacefully in Israel.
    - bluish29 3y ago
      > Meanwhile, Palestine has shown no restraint at all in their 10/7 massacre and no Jews live in Palestine, whereas many Arabs live peacefully in Israel. Do you realize that isreal is the side who killed at least 10x the number that the other side kill. I can see that you describe hamas's action as horrible but there is no way of condition that justifies what isreal did and is still doing to Palestinian civilians (no matter how you think you can)
- didibus 3y ago
  > go after military targets even at some cost to civilians (and the question of that cost) I feel the "question of that cost" is where the differences in opinion lie. For example, if Israel considered the civilians of Gaza as Israel citizens of equal importance to all other Israeli citizens, you'd expect them to consider that cost to be much higher, and it would force them to maneuver much more carefully in their military operations in order to minimize it. Yes, it would make it a lot harder for them to fight and make headway against Hamas as well if they did. Some people hold the belief that this is how Israel should treat civilians, no lesser than they'd treat their own. I think another contentious issue, is around the outcome of the war, and what it means for those civilians as well. Is the idea to force the One-State solution, but not as a binational state with equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of ethnicity or religion, but instead as a state with dominant Jewish identity? The impression to this question can change your opinion of the civilian casualties, are they an unfortunate price to pay towards their liberation from Hamas, and their incorporation into a more just, equal, fair, democracy, where they can live a better life? Or is it actually towards their further oppression by Israel? Or if it is to force a Two-State solution, again, what would it mean of those civilians, would the Palestinian state be forced to harsh conditions as part of treaties if they lose the war, which would hurt those civilians further, etc. It's complicated, but I do think most of it is about this "cost of civilian casualties", and what worth you attribute to it, and what worth you attribute to the end in order to justify the means.
  - YZF 3y ago
    I don't think it's reasonable to expect Israel to consider Palestinians civilians in Gaza as of equal value to Israeli civilians in Israel during war time. Israel's duty as a country is to provide security for its people. I don't think this is a standard adhered to in any other war. That said, consider Israel is bombing tunnels and infrastructure where there is a real possibility that Israeli hostages would get killed. The question of the outcome of the war is a reasonable one. That said the primary goal of the war is to ensure the security of Israel. The longer term outcome would depend on political processes in Israel and in the Palestinian side and likely all the other parties that are have been meddling in this conflict forever.

YZF 3y ago

I think there's a difference in emphasis and intent. We're painting pictures here. So one picture we're painting is "kill as many civilians a possible with no other military objective" and the other picture we're painting is "go after military targets even at some cost to civilians (and the question of that cost)". The reality is that in every way, every military in the world, executes the second picture. The variable being what is a reasonable threshold for the given military objective. The accusations against Israel intentionally try to place it in the first picture. If the critics were clear about their issue being how Israel measures proportionality with respect to every single target they go after, and they were able to support their case comparing to other similar military campaigns, and there was a very clear outcome of that comparison, I think that's very fair and I'd even be able to get behind it. But that's not what the critics are doing.

bluish29 3y ago
Things are much clearer, you are just cherry picking what to respond and defend. Then you build your case against isreal critics. One example of things you ignored replying to the GP comment is this. This is a plain war crime > Israeli defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I have ordered a complete siege on Gaza: no electricity, no food, no fuel, no water. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly."
- YZF 3y ago
  This was said at the heat of the moment when the bodies of the Oct 7th victims were still warm and the entire country was stunned and lost. This complete siege didn't happen.
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    Uhhhh yes it did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_blockade_of_the_G... > On 9 October 2023, Israel imposed a "total blockade" of the Gaza Strip, blocking the entry of food, water, medicine, fuel and electricity.
    - YZF 3y ago
      But Israel does allow food and water to enter Gaza. Some fuel. And yes, it stopped providing a portion of Gaza's electricity. I think this (new) Wikipedia article is somewhat iffy. And maybe I'm misusing terminology. I think Israel's actions in this context constitute a blockade that is legal in times of war. I don't want to nitpick siege vs. blockage etc. or the fact that Israel doesn't control all the borders. Israel's actions here are legal.
      - bluish29 3y ago
        > But Israel does allow food and water to enter Gaza You mean by not bombing rafah crossing in violation of international law as they did several times already? > I think Israel's actions in this context constitute a blockade that is legal in times of war > Israel's actions here are legal. At least provide any sources during your quest to defend isreal actions. Even if it is straightout lies like that one [1] Hint : the story is about Israeli military releases footage of a secret terrorist ‘roster’ that turns out to be a calendar (that was very obvious for any one with basic arabic knowledge) and that was their justification for bombing and taking out a children hospital bt force. [1] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/israel-gaza-hospital-calendar-terrorist-roster/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/israel-gaza-hospital-calendar...
        YZF 3y ago
        I know about this incident. This was not a calendar. The first day was Oct 7th. It had the operation's name as the title "Al Aqsa Flood". https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1724245759174791626 https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1724245759174791626 It's true that Hagari incorrectly said it was a "roster". But it's not a calendar. It was a mistake, not a lie. He shouldn't have done that. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17zu5x8/did_the_idf_show_just_a_calendar_in_the_al/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17zu5x8/di...
jakelazaroff 3y ago
If you’re not going to be satisfied with anything short of Netanyahu on tape saying “our intent is to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible”verbatim, then we can just end this conversation now. Even the US would probably be forced to meaningfully withdraw support if Israel fully took the mask off (though as I’ve shown, many high ranking ministers and IDF members have come shockingly close). What you hear instead are thinly-veiled justifications. Oh, we had to bomb those hospitals because there were tunnels there. So sorry about the civilian deaths at a refugee camp, but we just wanted to get that one commander. Let’s be real here. Israel shut off food, water, medicine and electricity to Gaza. They’ve damaged over 2/3 of the buildings there [1]. As of a month ago, they’d dropped almost 2x the amount of explosives the US delivered to Hiroshima [2]. These are not the actions of a country “going after military targets even at some cost to civilians”. Israel is doing exactly what Hagari said: inflicting maximum damage. [1] https://x.com/tksshawa/status/1732447886237974898 https://x.com/tksshawa/status/1732447886237974898 [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/11/9/israel-attacks-on-gaza-weapons-and-scale-of-destruction https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/11/9/israel-att...
- Natsu 3y ago
  If they're planning to just kill everyone, why haven't they just leveled the place? Militarily speaking, they can do that right now and have been able to do that for a long time. So if that's their true goal, then what stops them from giving the order right now? Meanwhile, Palestine has shown no restraint at all in their 10/7 massacre and no Jews live in Palestine, whereas many Arabs live peacefully in Israel.
  - bluish29 3y ago
    > Meanwhile, Palestine has shown no restraint at all in their 10/7 massacre and no Jews live in Palestine, whereas many Arabs live peacefully in Israel. Do you realize that isreal is the side who killed at least 10x the number that the other side kill. I can see that you describe hamas's action as horrible but there is no way of condition that justifies what isreal did and is still doing to Palestinian civilians (no matter how you think you can)
didibus 3y ago
> go after military targets even at some cost to civilians (and the question of that cost) I feel the "question of that cost" is where the differences in opinion lie. For example, if Israel considered the civilians of Gaza as Israel citizens of equal importance to all other Israeli citizens, you'd expect them to consider that cost to be much higher, and it would force them to maneuver much more carefully in their military operations in order to minimize it. Yes, it would make it a lot harder for them to fight and make headway against Hamas as well if they did. Some people hold the belief that this is how Israel should treat civilians, no lesser than they'd treat their own. I think another contentious issue, is around the outcome of the war, and what it means for those civilians as well. Is the idea to force the One-State solution, but not as a binational state with equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of ethnicity or religion, but instead as a state with dominant Jewish identity? The impression to this question can change your opinion of the civilian casualties, are they an unfortunate price to pay towards their liberation from Hamas, and their incorporation into a more just, equal, fair, democracy, where they can live a better life? Or is it actually towards their further oppression by Israel? Or if it is to force a Two-State solution, again, what would it mean of those civilians, would the Palestinian state be forced to harsh conditions as part of treaties if they lose the war, which would hurt those civilians further, etc. It's complicated, but I do think most of it is about this "cost of civilian casualties", and what worth you attribute to it, and what worth you attribute to the end in order to justify the means.
- YZF 3y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to expect Israel to consider Palestinians civilians in Gaza as of equal value to Israeli civilians in Israel during war time. Israel's duty as a country is to provide security for its people. I don't think this is a standard adhered to in any other war. That said, consider Israel is bombing tunnels and infrastructure where there is a real possibility that Israeli hostages would get killed. The question of the outcome of the war is a reasonable one. That said the primary goal of the war is to ensure the security of Israel. The longer term outcome would depend on political processes in Israel and in the Palestinian side and likely all the other parties that are have been meddling in this conflict forever.